If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

But that's just it Michael, there's no indication of friendship in Hutchison's statement that I can see. He shows no concern for Mary at all, in fact he specifically says he didn't have any concerns for her. If he was trying to paint himself as a trusted friend, he did a poor job of it. And if he was stalking anyone, it was Astrakhan Man.
Also, what makes you think he was older than Mary?

Hutchinson claims that Mary asked him for some spare money, it does not appear to be solicitous as her primary occupation would suggest. He claims he watched a couple near Marys room for some time...could be construed as either a watchful eye or a stalker granted, but perhaps the first scenario is what is intended by that aspect of the story. I get the impression we are been told of a middle aged man, in his forties, and a 26 year old street girl. The timing, the content and the fact that we do not have the opportunity, or hear of one taken, to corroborate his story by another witness we know has value, one that we know knew Mary, combined... make him a unreliable witness at best.

The man seen by him, An "astrakhan" man, was being sought by police at that same time, and one disappeared from his lodgings very near Marys the night she is murdered. We hear she was seeing another Joe. Perhaps a rougher, more violent type than Flemming. This man was a Joe.

Could this man have been set up by this statement? I don't believe his whereabouts have been determined that night. Could Hutchinson, either by his own volition or as a paid distraction, have provided this story so that Sarah Lewis's "suspect" was downplayed as any danger to Mary that night? I think so. The offer of a Pardon for Accomplices was a desperate attempt by a frustrated force to get a hold of a situation that became completely out of control, when a woman is now murdered in her own room and in her own bed. Wideawake is I believe the catalyst for the offer, therefore what I suggest Hutchinson did intentionally, he did in fact do, nonetheless. Hutch as that man, based on his story, was not a predator..he suggests he may have been watching one.

Comment

It's your assumption of honesty that's baffling, given the extraordinary nature of Hutchinson's story and his bizarre delay in telling it. Personally, I don't think Hutchinson was "guilty" of anything more than bull$hit, to a greater or lesser degree.

I can't recall how many times I've said that lying had to be a daily necessity for many in the East End, just to get by. The point is, was he honest in his statement to police?
- Reason for loitering for so long - maybe not.
- Having no money at all, no.
- Walking around all night - just an expression.
- Did he see what he claimed to see? - Yes.

Regards, Jon S.

Comment

That would be my reading of it Sam
Even if Hutch did believe she was killed at 8-9 in the morning the only thing which is certain is Mary was butchered in her room. The very room only a few hours earlier a man, who did not want to be recognized spent the best part of an hour with her.
Hutch could very easily assume that he spent the night there, and when Mary did come back to her room after her trip to the Ringers [left him sleeping there, he could have paid her an extra sixpence and after all what was there for him to take?], he killed her then. She was not, in any press report whatsoever seen entering that tiny room with any other person after Hutch's sighting.

And that very theory was expressed in Reynolds News on Sunday.
What can be reasonably concluded, given what we now know is, that whatever Hutchinson decided to do was an assumption based on what he learned from the press, either directly or indirectly.
It is not necessary to accuse him of suspicious actions in why he didn't come forward, and speak to police about it until Sunday.
That being the actual day, and the first time, we read of more conclusive evidence (ie; medical), in connection with an early morning murder.
The day of the murder - Friday "all" press coverage suggested Kelly was murdered in the late morning.
On Sunday, the day he first came forward, the conclusions of the post mortem were published consistent with an early morning murder.
Sufficient enough reason for him to now mention his sighting to police.

Comment

Hutchinson was in his early twenties, believe me. If Kelly was right about her age, he was 3 or 4 years her junior.

I had forgotten that Sam, should have checked again before guessing. Although it doesn't really change the point I'm making about that Wideawake "suspect" made benign by his statement. I suspect had Hutch come forward immediately, like any friend would do, then there would have been no Pardon offer made. Based on what circumstantial evidence? The only possible suspect who poses an accomplice like threat is Wideawake.

Comment

The day of the murder - Friday "all" press coverage suggested Kelly was murdered in the late morning.

No. What about the cries of "Murder!" emanating from the direction of Kelly's room a short time after Hutchinson had purportedly left her alone with the weird guy?

Besides, it's not all about the press. As you I think pointed out, Hutchinson apparently dozed in his lodgings and didn't wake up until the late afternoon. When he did, the lodging house and all the streets around it would have been buzzing with news of the horrendous events in (very) nearby Miller's Court, without need of the press reports at all.

Comment

I’m afraid neither Liz Long nor Lawende (et al) compare in the slightest to Hutchinson in terms of a rational explanation for the late arrival of their evidence. The Hanbury and Duke Street witnesses were simply passing along, and had no connection with, or interest in, either the deceased or her small-hours companion. Hutchinson, by contrast, had allegedly known Kelly for three years, and took an active - almost inappropriately active - interest in both Kelly herself and her Astrakhan companion, rendering his failure to come forward all the more inexplicable.

Again, Hutchinson’s ultimate decision to change his mind and “get involved” just so happened to coincide with the end of the inquest; the chances of these two events being unrelated are very slim.

Returning briefly to the Ridgway issue, I guess we’ll have to agree to differ. I would suggest, since “inject” is obviously rather an emotive term and perhaps something of a buzzword in the world of criminal psychology, that we substitute it for “approached the police voluntarily pretending to a be a witness”. Gary Ridgway did precisely that, and the fact that he had already come under the police radar makes not a jot of difference as far as I’m concerned, especially not to the suggested and likely mentality, which was that “he was afraid police would come across his name during the investigation.”

Ridgway wasn’t the sole focus of the entire Green River investigation in the early eighties; he was simply one person of interest among a great many, and the event for which we was originally called in for questioning had occurred a whole year earlier.

So I don’t see how his prior police contact makes any difference to Ridgway’s likely motivation for coming forward voluntarily, pre-emoting (in his mind) the link with Christensen being made independently by the police, which would have resulted in him being dragged in as a suspect again. By beating them to the punch, and coming forward as a helpful informant, he “legitimised” his link to the victim before that it could be made independently and viewed as suspicious.

If Hutchinson was similarly motivated in the Kelly case, it would certainly make sense of a lot of things; his loitering presence as witnessed by an independent witness, his implausible story, and his decision to come forward the moment that independent witness’s evidence was released.

As for the percentage of serial killers who have come forward pretending to be witnesses or informants, I’m afraid I can’t help you, and the bad news is nor can anyone else, since I’ve never seen any statistical analysis encompassing all known serial killers in history. What I can tell is that it must be a sufficiently recognisable and recurring trait if experts in law enforcement and criminal psychology have correctly predicted it happening in some cases.

Good post Ben
I dont know how many true crime shows Ive seen where the killer originally comes on the police radar posing as a witness, or some kind of helpful person, usually to the police, but sometimes to other witnesses-who then go to the police.

Just last night I was watching one where a hunter who found the body was de facto a person of interest, and the lead detective said-because many times who you think at first is just a witness turns out to be the perp.

I remember thinking-I hope Wicky is watching this!! LOL.

However, I do concede that most do stay away, keep there head down, leave town etc. of course.

Comment

If Hutchinson himself was the killer, it would only reasonably follow that after such police exposure - coupled with the increased police vigilance serving to thwart further attempts, in all likelihood - he would have been compelled to “pause” at the very least.

Ben - This is precisely where your attempts at psychology become gibberish and self-serving. On one hand you claim that Hutchinson was driven to "inflict himself into the investigation" and then turn around and say that this sudden attention by the police -- that he himself created!-- would naturally explain why he would "pause" before committing further crimes because he is now nervous of exposure. It is inconsistent and unconvincing, as are your attempts to sweep Liz Long and Joe Lawende under the rug. They both were well aware that a horrific murder occurred and that they were potential witnesses, and yet they both delayed before coming forward. It's commonplace.

Comment

Some in the U.S. will remember the case of a young tourist from Utah, Brian Watkins, who was stabbed to death in a NYC subway station in 1990 while defending his mother during a robbery.

In that case, a witness who saw the beginning of the assault, and learned the next morning that a murder had occurred, nonetheless did not come forward for 24 years, even though she did, in fact, know one of the people who was supposedly involved in the murder and was subsequently sent to prison, wrongly.

When asked why she had hesitated she answered that she had two small children "and didn't want no problems."

Also, her mother told her "Don't get involved. Let the police take care of it."

Because she didn't come forward the guy spent 25 years in the slammer for a crime he did not commit. By comparison, Hutchinson looks like a model citizen for only delaying two days before telling a PC, and then, when that failed, going to the police station personally.

Comment

No. What about the cries of "Murder!" emanating from the direction of Kelly's room a short time after Hutchinson had purportedly left her alone with the weird guy?

Gareth!
I've wrote time & time again, there was no cry of murder reported on Friday!
Check for yourself.
I've been through the Echo, Star, Pall Mall Gazette, St. James Gazette, Evening News, Evening Post, Evening Standard, Globe, etc. All the evening papers.

This is the important point. On the day when everyone is anxious for details, including Hutchinson, and the day the victim was identified as Kelly, the first day of the murder, all they were reading was that Kelly had been seen alive late in the morning.

The cry of murder only came out on Saturday.

Regards, Jon S.

Comment

Besides, it's not all about the press. As you I think pointed out, Hutchinson apparently dozed in his lodgings and didn't wake up until the late afternoon. When he did, the lodging house and all the streets around it would have been buzzing with news of the horrendous events in (very) nearby Miller's Court, without need of the press reports at all